Átlátszó (Átlátszó: Transparency), a Hungarian investigative journalism organization and online journalist portal, conducted a large-scale investigation into recent changes in the country’s media. In August 2022, Átlátszó published an article on the results. It criticizes the steadily growing influence of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán over the media and the degree of centralization among pro-government outlets.

In response, at 13:46 on January 4, 2023, as many as 19 prominent online news portals simultaneously published the same article criticizing Átlátszó. Smear campaigns against Átlátszó and its editor-in-chief then continued for weeks, accusing them of treason against Hungary and of working for foreign interests, claiming they must be countered as a national security risk. This appears to reflect the centralized nature of much of Hungary’s media and its favorable stance toward the current government.

How did Hungary’s media get to this point? Through what steps did the country’s media become what it is today? This article explores the history of the Hungarian media and the issues surrounding its current state.

Microphones of a Hungarian broadcaster (Photo: Pxfuel [Terms of use]) 

History of Hungary

Hungary has a complex history stretching back more than 1,000 years. Hungarians first settled in the Carpathian Basin in the late 9th century and had established a powerful kingdom by around the year 1000.

Initially prosperous, Hungary stood out as a major power in its region and played a significant role in Europe’s politics and culture. However, its momentum waned after conquest by the Ottoman Empire in the mid-16th century. When Ottoman occupation ended in 1699, Hungary maintained independence for about 200 years before again coming under rule, first as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and later as a kingdom within the Habsburg Monarchy. The 19th century saw the rise of Hungarian nationalism, which demanded greater self-government from the Habsburgs, ultimately leading to the proclamation of the independent Hungarian Republic in 1918 at the end of World War I.

After World War II, Hungary came under Soviet control and became a communist state in 1949. The Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, closely aligned with the Soviet Union, governed the country. This period brought major economic and social changes, including collectivization of agriculture, industrialization, and the establishment of a centrally planned economy. A popular uprising against the communist regime erupted in 1956 but was crushed by Soviet troops. Thereafter, and until the Soviet collapse in 1991, Hungary endured a further period of harsh repression and isolation.

As the Soviet Union weakened, Hungary transitioned toward democratic capitalism, holding its first free elections in 1990. During Soviet rule, Hungary was called “the happiest barracks (※1),” and Western countries expected it would fall within their sphere of influence relative to other former Soviet-bloc countries. Hungary joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1999 and the European Union (EU) in 2004, signaling a turn toward the West. However, the transition to a free-market economy was not without challenges. Moving from central planning to a market economy meant privatizing state-owned enterprises, deregulating industries, and introducing market-based pricing. This initially triggered high inflation and left the country with significant external debt in the 1990s. By 1995, that debt had reached nearly 80% of GDP, influencing future policy choices.

News media in Hungary

As this history suggests, Hungary has faced various forms of repression over roughly 1,000 years and, in recent decades, continuing political turmoil. This has affected the nature of Hungary’s news media. From the 19th century onward, foreign powers ruling Hungary heavily restricted press freedom. The communist government under Soviet influence viewed the media as a crucial tool for spreading communist ideology and preventing the emergence of domestic dissent and opposition.

Change began even before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991: in 1989, a new constitution guaranteeing fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, abolished Soviet-style censorship. At the same time, the introduction of commercial advertising created new pressures on media outlets to capture audience attention in order to generate revenue. This drove a shift toward an entertainment-first mindset, undermining the quality of Hungarian journalism.

In 1996, a media law was introduced, creating a framework to promote greater media pluralism. It set licensing requirements for radio and television broadcasters, imposed limits on concentration of ownership, and established content rules. It also created a new, ostensibly independent regulator, the National Radio and Television Board (ORTT), to oversee broadcasting and license new media. The law further established a public broadcasting system for both television and radio and mandated the provision of quality programming.

The rise of the Orbán government

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, leader of the Fidesz party (※2), came to power in 1998 and served one term until 2002. During his term, Orbán implemented policies aimed at spurring economic growth, including tax cuts and privatization, as well as a series of nationalist initiatives focused on promoting Hungarian culture and history. Though often controversial, these policies initially achieved success, bringing sustained economic growth and a decline in unemployment. At the same time, concerns were raised about his social policies, particularly regarding the treatment of minorities (mainly the Roma and Jewish communities) and his approach to the media and civil liberties, which sparked debate.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (Photo: European People’s Party / Flickr [CC BY 2.0])

Hungarian politics became polarized (※3), and amid low turnout for opposition parties, Fidesz lost the 2002 election. Even so, Orbán’s first government was undoubtedly a period of significant change and transformation, laying the groundwork for continued shifts in Hungary. In 2010, Fidesz returned to power.

In 2015, the rise of IS (the Islamic State) and conflict in Iraq and Syria triggered a massive influx of refugees into Europe, known as the “refugee crisis.” This intensified debates over border control, EU member states’ responsibilities to accept refugees, and the EU’s role in responding to the crisis, becoming one of the defining political issues in Europe in the 2010s.

The Orbán government took a hard line on this issue, firmly opposing the admission of refugees. One of its most prominent actions was the construction, in 2015, of a border fence along the southern border with Serbia to block the inflow of refugees and migrants, drawing heavy criticism from Western EU countries.

Hungary’s stance also openly opposed the EU’s proposed refugee quota scheme (※4). Hungary forged close ties with other Visegrád Group (V4) countries (※5) that shared its position, arguing that the EU’s attempt to impose migrant quotas was an abuse of power. This stance led to friction with the European People’s Party (EPP) (※6), a Christian democratic grouping to which Fidesz belonged, culminating in the suspension of Fidesz in 2019 over concerns that its actions contravened democratic values and the rule of law.

Fence built along the Hungary–Serbia border (Bőr Benedek / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

In response to EU measures such as the refugee quota scheme, the Fidesz government launched the “Stop Brussels” campaign. Running since 2015, it ramped up particularly before the May 2017 European Parliament elections, with billboards, pamphlets, and TV commercials deployed nationwide. These materials posed a series of leading questions and proposals regarding the government’s anti-refugee policies. They also included numerous data points suggesting that countries with looser border controls were deteriorating, implying that admitting refugees posed dangers to the nation.

The campaign drew criticism from opposition parties and international civil society groups. Hungary was also criticized for accepting and using EU funds while simultaneously opposing EU policies and for allegedly manipulating public opinion to distract from other issues facing citizens, a charge of hypocrisy. Attacks on independent media and civil society organizations were also seen as an assault on media freedom and the overall information environment.

In conclusion, during the latter half of the 2010s refugee crisis, the Fidesz government took a high-risk path by defying the EU. Yet in the 2018 election, Fidesz won 2/3 of the vote, enabling it for several years to pass referendums without forming a coalition, making it extremely difficult to challenge the government—developments that seemed to work in its favor.

Government pressure on the media

In 2010, the Orbán government enacted the Hungarian Media Law, which was controversial. Intended to regulate Hungary’s media industry, it was criticized by many as lacking transparency and potentially restricting press freedom, thereby endangering it.

Journalist compiling an article (Photo: European Parliament / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0] )

The law’s main provisions are as follows: 1) Establishment of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH) to replace the ORTT and oversee regulation of Hungary’s media industry; the NMHH has the authority to impose fines and other sanctions on media that violate the law. 2) Mandatory registration of all media outlets with the Media Council (※7), with full disclosure of ownership and funding sources. 3) Regulation of the content that media organizations may broadcast. 4) Prohibition of certain content and quotas for others, defining portions of what may be shown. 5) In certain cases, such as reporting related to national security, journalists may be required to disclose their sources. These five points.

Following its introduction, critics argued that the government’s control over the media industry was too strong and could be used to suppress dissenting opinions and restrict press freedom. The Media Council was criticized for its lack of transparency and insufficient independence from the government. Vague standards and rules for content regulation, licensing and frequency allocation, and media ownership were also a concern. Because the law grants this authority to the NMHH, it was said to risk facilitating direct top-down government interference.

Despite these criticisms, the Hungarian government defended the law, arguing it was necessary to ensure that the media industry operates with responsibility and transparency. The law was ultimately amended in 2016 regarding the Media Council and again in 2021 on the occasion of introducing the “anti-paedophile” law.

On March 4, 2021, Hungary’s media regulator NMHH initiated legal proceedings against RTL Hungary, a media group and one of the country’s remaining major television channels independent of the government, for airing a TV advertisement intended to raise awareness and acceptance of LGTBQ (※8) families. The regulator claimed it launched formal proceedings against RTL in response to viewer complaints. First aired in December 2020, the ad shows LGBTQ couples and individuals responding to homophobic messages posted online. The ad was meant to be part of a larger movement in Hungary to promote gender equality and combat homophobia. Ultimately, the Media Council and the courts imposed a fine on RTL of approximately 40,000 euros.

Following the 2021 legal action against RTL, a new media regulation was enacted. Hungary passed the “Anti-Paedophile Law” aimed at protecting children’s safety and natural development. This law was also controversial. While it targeted child abuse and child pornography and included provisions to increase penalties on paedophiles and strengthen protections for victims, it also contained clauses seen as targeting the LGBTQ community. With this amendment, depictions of homosexuality and transgender issues were effectively banned in media and advertising that minors under 18 might see.

Members of the European Parliament criticizing the revision of Hungary’s media law (European Parliament / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY 2.0])

The law drew condemnation from the EU, which took legal action against Hungary over the matter. The Hungarian government defended the revisions and again criticized the EU through a series of government-funded advertisements.

In 2021, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights published a memorandum, “Freedom of Expression and Media Freedom in Hungary,” expressing concern about the impact of government-controlled media regulatory authorities on media pluralism and freedom of expression, and about the promotion of anti-refugee propaganda.

Government pressure on the media is not only exercised through laws and regulations. In June 2022, it was revealed that Hungarian diplomats working in EU countries were monitoring the foreign media visits of Hungarian journalists. The monitoring extended not only to journalists but also to organizations related to them, with particular attention paid to foreign media expressing critical views of the Fidesz government. The data were sent back to Hungary; some were later obtained by the outlet Direkt36 and disclosed. While there is no evidence the surveillance was conducted clandestinely, concerns have been raised about government complicity and misuse of diplomatic services.

Taken together, these measures suggest that while the Hungarian government has not engaged in overt, blatant censorship to control the media, it has slowly yet steadily increased pressure on journalists and newsrooms.

Ownership challenges to media freedom

Hungary’s media have faced not only government pressure but also challenges arising from changes in media ownership. Chief among them is one individual—both the gradual acquirer of much of Hungary’s media companies and a personal friend of Prime Minister Orbán: Lőrinc Mészáros. Over a prolonged, multi-stage process, he acquired many media companies.

Lőrinc Mészáros featured in Forbes (Photo: László Bence Gergely)

Mészáros’s media empire grew from owning only a single media company in 2015 to controlling more than 340 media companies by 2022. Many of these outlets have been accused of serving as tools of government propaganda, with coverage heavily tilted toward supporting government policies. In various respects, media pluralism in Hungary has significantly deteriorated since 2014.

Mészáros’s expansion was rapid; since 2010 he has acquired companies in sectors including energy, construction, and media. The ascent of his media empire traces back to 2014, when he bought TV2—one of Hungary’s largest commercial TV channels—at a relatively low price. TV2 was then in financial distress, so its sale for a fraction of its true value was, in a sense, inevitable.

After acquiring TV2, he bought several local newspapers and radio stations, further enlarging his portfolio. Today, he owns around 200 newspapers and magazines in Hungary—some 60–70% of the country’s newspapers, and 100% of local papers. Most of these outlets belong to Mediaworks Hungary Zrt. (hereafter Mediaworks), one of the media conglomerates (※9) owned by Mészáros. In 2019, Mediaworks voluntarily placed itself under the supervision of the Media Council created by the Fidesz government. In other words, a large portion of the country’s newspapers are overseen by people closely connected to the ruling regime.

This reveals a pattern in how the Hungarian government has used indirect media control and propaganda to shape public opinion. The process began with Mészáros’s large-scale acquisitions of Hungarian media companies and grew more powerful over the following years.

This graph tracks how the stance of various outlets in Hungary toward the government changed over time. After the Mediaworks acquisitions, all local newspapers became pro-government. In addition to local papers, pro-government media came to dominate the radio market and national dailies, while independent outlets continued to make up a majority of online news portals and weeklies.

Through his acquisitions in print media, Mészáros came to own several prominent Hungarian newspapers, including the popular opposition-leaning daily Népszabadság. Yet immediately after the 2016 acquisition, Népszabadság was abruptly shut down, drawing accusations that the government was trying to silence critical voices in the media. Mediaworks, the paper’s owner, announced the closure, citing financial losses. Employees were informed the same day but were still treated as Mediaworks staff and thus bound by confidentiality obligations. The shutdown sparked protests in Hungary and international condemnation.

Pro-government media have also expanded online. Index, once an independent online platform, followed a similar path to local papers as ownership changes drew it closer to the government. In 2020 July, a company connected to Mészáros acquired a majority stake in Indamedia, Index’s parent company. Employees saw this purchase as a threat to the outlet’s independence. Some leading journalists resigned in protest. Those who remained declared their commitment to independent journalism and issued an open letter urging the new management to respect editorial freedom.

However, in 2020 September, Index’s board of directors was replaced with pro-government members, further heightening concerns over the outlet’s independence. Critics argue this development means a further erosion of press freedom in Hungary and, ultimately, impacts Hungarian democracy itself, drawing criticism.

Index, a Hungarian online news portal (Photo: Virgil Hawkins)

According to former reporters, not only censorship but also self-censorship increasingly took place. Coverage shifted from neutral, public-interest topics toward reporting on government policy achievements. Journalists stopped pursuing topics they felt would not gain the editor-in-chief’s approval.

Although indirect, the government’s evident control over many outlets has narrowed the diversity of angles pursued. Many outlets promote the Hungarian government’s anti-refugee and anti-EU posture, often depicting refugees and migrants as threats to national security and cultural identity. In response to these developments, the European Parliament, in a resolution adopted in 2018, expressed concern that media freedom and pluralism in Hungary were being systematically threatened and that the government was using media to disseminate anti-refugee, anti-immigrant propaganda.

Beyond the expansion of his media empire within Hungary, it has been alleged that Mészáros’s outlets are also being used in neighboring countries to advance the Hungarian government’s interests, undermining journalistic independence and eroding media diversity through economic and political maneuvering (※10).

In 2019, Mészáros advanced his expansion abroad by acquiring a majority stake in the Croatian newspaper group Hanza Media, as reported by Reuters. This purchase gave him control over several prominent Croatian newspapers, and the Central European Press and Media Foundation (KESMA) also joined in, acquiring several newspapers and online news portals in the country.

Mészáros’s subsidiaries have similarly acquired majority stakes in several local papers and portals in Romania and Slovakia. The activities of conglomerates closely linked to Fidesz and their surrounding investors have raised concerns.

A debate on EU citizenship hosted by Hungarian media (euranet_plus / Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0])

Conclusion

To summarize: government-led regulation and other pressures have contributed to undermining press freedom in today’s Hungary. However, the single greatest factor shaping the current centralized media landscape has been the acquisition of media outlets by individuals closely connected to the ruling regime.

Analyzing the current situation, Hungary’s media environment has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. The government has centralized the media and steered toward suppressing independent journalism. Nevertheless, independent media have not disappeared entirely. Many independent outlets in Hungary still report on important issues, and civil society groups that defend their freedom to report and support free journalism make significant contributions to Hungary’s media.

※1 “The happiest barracks”: At the time, Hungary had the highest standard of living among Soviet-bloc countries because it was the easiest place to travel abroad and the quickest to access Western products and culture. “Barracks”: Refers to a state of one-party dictatorship with no personal freedom.

※2 Fidesz: A center-right Hungarian political party. The name is an acronym for Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége (Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance). It is now called Fidesz–Magyar Polgári Szövetség (Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance).

※3 In Hungary, parties were locked in a polarized contest between left and right, and the losing side had no influence over policymaking.

※4 A system that obliges EU member states to accept a certain number of refugees based on a formula calculated using population and GDP.

※5 Visegrád Group (V4): A cultural and political alliance of four countries: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.

※6 A multinational organization established by Christian democratic parties. Its policy positions align with the early policies of Fidesz, which is also a Christian democratic party.

※7 A regulatory body supported by the NMHH, composed through appointments made by the head of the NMHH.

※8 LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer.

※9 An independent company closely connected to firms owned by Mészáros which, after buying all local papers in 2016, was later acquired.

※10 In Romania and Slovakia, subsidiaries have acquired majority stakes in multiple local newspapers and portal sites.

Writer: László Bence Gergely

Translation: Ikumu Nakamura

Graphics: Haruka Gonno